Leaderboard

I'm just waiting for him to say Cleveland shouldn't have a team.

Anyone know when the last time the big marquee Christmas match-up was also the NBA Finals match-up? Last year, it was LA and Cleveland. The year before, I believe we played Boston. We played Phoenix in 2007, saw Boston in the Finals. The Spurs didn't even play on Christmas in 2006. Miami played the Lakers in 2005, met the Mavs in the Finals. Spurs didn't play on Christmas in 2004. Lakers played the Rockets in 2003, lost to the Pistons in the Finals. No Spurs in 2002's Christmas showdowns (do the Spurs EVER play on Christmas?)... The dynasty Lakers played the Spurs, Blazers and Sixers (in that order) and didn't play them in the Finals the same season. Second dynasty Bulls didn't play in 1995, then the Pistons and Heat the following two seasons. Houston played the Suns in 1993, nobody the following season. First dynasty Bulls played the Pistons, Celtics and Knicks on Christmas. The 86 Celtics played the Knicks in 1985, beat Houston in the Finals. The 82 Lakers played the Suns, beat the Sixers in the Finals. In 1980, the Celtics played the Knicks, then beat the Rockets in the Finals. I'm stopping there. Since the 1979-80 season, the two Finals teams were not the two that met on Christmas Day...and it has probably never happened in the history of the league (tired of looking). Last year, we lost to Cleveland. Devastating. Cleveland was nowhere to be found in June. I think a Lakers/Celtics match-up would've been much more interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKTy7mSusek I lol'd when I saw this tonight.

This is hilarious and everyone is getting their panties in a bunch about it, LeBron ftmfw

Haha, I really don't think anyone will beat out Howard for DPOY for a few more years, at least.

http://oi52.tinypic.com/23r0294.jpg

Couldn't find any good cuts of Miller, I hope that isn't a deal breaker. http://i54.tinypic.com/2q3aogy.jpg

You're already spoiled by your parents money, you shouldn't be spoiled with reps

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/7012/7868c9eaa99d.gif

I don't know how many of you are into this type of purely electronic music. This isn't house or dubstep or anything close to that, but they're beats with a more electronic feel (for lack of a better description). Flying Lotus's Cosmogramma was one of the best albums this year in any musical category. His 1983 album had more of a hip hop feel to it, and according to FL it was heavily influenced by J Dilla. From the looks of it, most of you seem to like the more "traditional" productions, but Flying Lotus is definitely a good listen if your into this type of music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CybO7XtYpdU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nZ3vIWrVo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3yxCBcjh2E

First of all LeBron clearly shows that he lacks knowledge of this game indeed... There was no team in the 80's who had four superstars. The Sixers had four All Stars in 83 but Andrew Toney sure was not a superstar... Cheeks was not either anyhow, a star yes but not a superstar. Except the Showtime Lakers and the 60's Celtics there is no team in the history of the game who won with at least three superstars in their team anyhow. All the other "super teams" that we had all failed to win a ring. So I certainly don't see how more teams loaded with stars would make the game any better in the first place... Another good example of that are the Teams USA of the last decade. Despite the fact that those teams were all loaded with NBA superstars the US only won twice in the 2000's. Barely won might I add since they almost lost in the semis against Lithuania in 2000 and in the Finals against Spain in 2008. The fact is that, as I already said many times, a team needs role players to win. You need those players who, even if they know to do one thing only, know their role perfectly and do what they're supposed to do. One of the reasons why teams of star usually do not work is because those stars have trouble to adapt to a new role. Cause when several stars play together they have to change their game indeed, something that some have a lot of trouble to accomplish. So no I certainly do not believe that it would be better for the league in any way if there were more teams of stars. And if there were less teams... Quite the opposite in fact, I certainly think that we need more teams. Some of the best basketball players ever never even played one game in the NBA. I'm talking about players like Bodiroga, Belov, Papaloukas, Planinic, Giannakis, Zdovc, Galis, Korac, Cosic, Oscar, Meneghin, Dalipagic, Morse, etc... And there's gonna be more and more talented players all over the world. Which is why the NBA definitely needs more teams in the future.

NFL Network has picked some of the worst games to show on primetime. lmao.

"now that's using your head" - Marv Albert

I agree that it would be awesome for everyone besides the fans of the teams they wipe off the map. The issue is money...there is simply too much money for the league to make via expansion. Sure, the league may generate more buzz and higher ratings with a few less teams, but they'd be losing a crazy amount of money by doing so. Still, it would be awesome if they cut off some of the league's dead weight, and the rich get richer (not Lakers/Celtics/Heat necessarily, but all those mid-level teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Thunder, etc...) It would lead to a better, more exciting product.

I think that's what me and platoon are saying...Miller has the capabilities to do more than just shoot spot-up jumpers, and will give the Heat a huge upgrade over JJ. He SHOULD be primarily a jumpshooter, but the fact that he has the ability to create off the dribble for himself or others, and can rebound (an area JJ is very, very poor at) will make him a dangerous weapon against the great defensive teams. The problem with Jones is that unless he's hitting that open corner 3 pointer, he's otherwise pretty useless. Miller is a very good all-around basketball player who can create his own shot, and if that initial 3pt shot isn't there, he can create off the dribble and either finish or find an open teammate. Either way, it's a lot better for the offense than simply passing it out of the corner to a defended LBJ/Wade 30ft out, which is what happens when Jones doesn't have an open shot.

One of the most enjoyable games to watch in a while. Such a great win. Everyone played great.

Hope the Magic play the same way vs. Boston!!!

In other news, I invented OTR, and without it, computers are useless.

Amazing first half for the Magic. They've been playing really well and I really like the shooting selection by Arenas. Dwight Howard has to be careful with the fouls though. He's making too much of them right now. It's funny to see the Spurs trying to get this third foul on him

you must be joking right? The Raptors are TERRIBLE so anyone of value should be traded so this team can get younger and continue to rebuild. The fact that hes putting up these numbers is good only in the sense that he may now have SOME trade worth, compared to the minimal amount of interest he would experience prior to this december outburst. While i dont think they should make a trade just to make a trade, moving Calderon should still be one of their primary options.

Heck yes, u should know me.

I like what he does though. That one little shot can turn a player on.

OTR is the longest forum I have stuck to. Just such a good crew of posters kinda almost feels like I have known alot of you all over the last few years.

They adjust the stats via some mathimatical formula. But it is adjusted. This isn't raw +/-. For that specific game he was probably the best. We don't know how many points he failed to prevent, we don't know if a missed shot led to a fast break basket, there are ways to look at this. Also, if a player shoots 12-50 and scores 30 points (of his team's 50), and his opponent goes 1-5 and scores 2 points, but his team scores 80, the player didn't really have a terrific game. And in the adjusted +/- Artest gets the blame. Kobe will be adjusted and made better for playing with a player who shot 1-10. I believe that's part of the premise of how this works. I'm not. This post was about me being cheap and knowing people would get riled up. I do want people to see that there is some truth behind these numbers though. If a player were sixth in assists per game, would he be an automatic MVP candidate? Or in rebounds per game? FG% Blocks? It's one metric. Nobody will make any MVP arguments off of one metric, except the people who do it strictly based on ppg. And the unit still dominates other benches, and some units with partial benches and some starters. That's not what I see for Boston's best unit. I see Rondo, Allen, Daniels, KG, and Rasheed, plus with a hefty standard error. If surprised why Rondo, Allen, Pierce, KG, Perkins isn't the top unit, remember, the Celtics lost a lot of games last season with a starting lineup that often looked old and washed up. For Miami, there's also a huge standard error on that lineup. Their best 8 or 9 lineups with standard errors less than 15 all involve Wade.